Buthy v. Algonquin Broadcasting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buthy v. Algonquin Broadcasting Corp.

115 A.D.2d 983, 497 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55374

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 983 (Buthy v. Algonquin Broadcasting Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buthy v. Algonquin Broadcasting Corp., 115 A.D.2d 983, 497 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied summary judgment (CPLR 3212). An affidavit of the radio announcer who made the allegedly defamatory news broadcast to the effect that he "had no personal knowledge, no direct knowledge and no indirect knowledge” of the true facts does not establish that defendant did not act in "a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199). Thus, the moving papers, although unrefuted, do not establish that defendant is entitled as a matter of law to a judgment dismissing the action (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied summary judgment (CPLR 3212). An affidavit of the radio announcer who made the allegedly defamatory news broadcast to the effect that he "had no personal knowledge, no direct knowledge and no indirect knowledge” of the true facts does not establish that defendant did not act in "a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199). Thus, the moving papers, although unrefuted, do not establish that defendant is entitled as a matter of law to a judgment dismissing the action (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 983, 497 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buthy-v-algonquin-broadcasting-corp-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack